Recent CAT, High Court and Supreme Court rulings affecting leave entitlements — what each judgment actually means for a serving employee, with full citations and operational consequences.
The shape of leave law is set as much by the Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court as by the rules themselves. A rule that grants a sanctioning authority discretion to refuse leave looks open-ended on paper, but a series of recent judgments — from the Delhi High Court ruling that CCL cannot be denied arbitrarily where EOL has been sanctioned, to the Supreme Court holding in K. Umadevi v. Government of Tamil Nadu that maternity leave is part of a woman’s reproductive rights and cannot be denied on the basis of children from a previous marriage — has narrowed that discretion considerably.
This section explains what each major recent judgment actually means for a serving Central Government employee. Each piece carries the full case citation, the operative direction of the court, the precedents the judgment relies on, and a note on whether subsequent decisions have modified or distinguished it.
When an employee is placed under suspension during disciplinary proceedings, the effect on leave is one of the most under-examined questions. Here is what the…
The leave encashment tax exemption position is straightforward for Central Government employees but has been contested for PSU and bank retirees. Five rulings settle the…
Three Supreme Court rulings have reshaped the legal position on Maternity Leave for Central Government and other employees. Each one removes a previously-accepted ground for…
A walkthrough of the recent Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court decisions on Child Care Leave refusal, with the operative directions and what they mean…